Author
Topic: What is the Orthodox Church? (Read 4400 times)

The Orthodox Church is the ancient Church, as founded by Christ and His Apostles. Throughout its 2,000 year history, the true faith has remained without corruption and without change. Not a mere sect or denomination, it the original body from which all other Christian groups are tangents. There are no valid sacraments outside of Orthodoxy. The Orthodox Church is the Church of the New Testament because she wrote the New Testament. If I am incorrect, please rebuke me.

The Orthodox Church is the ancient Church, as founded by Christ and His Apostles. Throughout its 2,000 year history, the true faith has remained without corruption and without change. Not a mere sect or denomination, it the original body from which all other Christian groups are tangents. There are no valid sacraments outside of Orthodoxy. The Orthodox Church is the Church of the New Testament because she wrote the New Testament. If I am incorrect, please rebuke me.

Peace.

I don't know if I am allowed to rebuke you for this on this forum. LOL.

With this bit of bluster you've moved yourself from the "chaser after eccentricities" to the "swaggering ideologue" column in my list of problem interlocutors. I am not so ignorant that I would accept this claim from anyone, much less from you. Only sectarian cranks believe this sort of stuff, and if you are ging to stick with it I shall quit bothering to convince you of your errors and move to trying to warn everyone else away from you.

The Orthodox Church is, in belief and practice, that same Church which was founded on the day of Pentecost. For 2,000 years our Church has survived without corruption and without change.

How could anyone with even a slight knowledge of the New Testament and Church history ever claim that the practices of the Orthodox Church have not changed in 2000 years? Where is the glossolalia of the New Testament Church today? Did the Apostles celebrate the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom 400 years before he wrote it? Which Apostle administered Holy Communion with a Spoon? Where are the Deaconesses today? Why don't we have an Agape every time the Eucharist is celebrated? Why was a decree necessary from the First Oecumenical Council to ensure that Pascha was celebrated on the same day throughout the Church? Why was it nearly 400 years before we would celebrate the Nativity of Christ on the same day?Keble is not knocking the Orthodox Church. He is knocking "Mathew-facts".

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

As far as revelation from God, I believe we are the One, Holy, Unchanged Church from Jesus Chrsit our Lord to the Apostles. As for Practice, its subjective but for Doctrinal purposes I can claim we have not changed nor swayed/altered, unlike others who wouls say otherwise.

Blessings,Panagiotis

Logged

"The first condition for the establishment of perpetual peace is the general adoption of the principles of laissez-faire capitalism"-Ludwig Von Mises

In the Great Intercession of the Divine Liturgy of Saint James, the oldest liturgy of the Church, we call to remembrence those leaders and teachers who have preserved the one undefiled and uncorrupt faith. The externals may have changed, but not the true theology and not the spirit of the liturgy. There is a difference between Tradition and traditions.

Quote

Again, we commemorate those who have gone before, fallen asleep in holiness, and are at rest among the saints; those who have kept the one apostolic faith without blemish and entrusted it to us... Let us, also, remember all those before them, with them and after them, who kept the one, true and uncorrupted faith and delivered it to us. May their prayers be a stronghold to us. Let us beseech the Lord.http://sor.cua.edu/Liturgy/Anaphora/Chrysostom.html

Keble is not knocking the Orthodox Church. He is knocking "Mathew-facts".

Would Keble agree that the Orthodox Church is the one, true and uncorrupted faith? If any member of this forum disagrees that Orthodoxy is the one, true and uncorrupted faith, please explain why.

Quote

The term Orthodox combines the adjective orthos, which means right, correct or true, and the noun doxa, which comes from the verb doxazo, "I hold an opinion," or "I believe." Hence "right belief," or "true doctrine." But in a deeper sense it also means "right worship," since doxazo can also mean "I glorify." It could be said that the term Orthodox was forged as a defense against heretical, or heterodox, teaching which persisted during the formative centuries. As then, so now, it signifies a framework of theological propositions worked into precise doctrinal formulations, a body of faith and a tradition, that has retained its absolute integrity in the face of the changes and innovations that have occurred within Christianity.http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7051.asp

If any member of this forum disagrees that Orthodoxy is the one, true and uncorrupted faith, please explain why.

Oh, I get it now....you're going through that phase. So are we are now over the other phase of having a picture of Krisna as our avatar, and the other one which had Christ crucified on a telegraph pole, and the other one which held all "Apostolic Churches" (including the Roman Catholics) as the "one, true and uncorrupted faith".......And the other phase of two months ago when you told us that you had no problem receiving Holy Communion in a Roman Catholic Church and that your parish communes Roman Catholics?

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Sometimes it's just best to surrender your opinion, and accept God's truth. Otherwise, it will end up biting you in the a**. Reading Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future was eye an opening experience for me. Most of the things that Father Seraphim warns against are exactly what I once believed. Only in Orthodoxy can we find a refuge from heresy. I cannot verbalize every Sunday that Orthodoxy is the one, true and uncorrupted faith, if I deny it in my heart and mind. I acknoweldged that the Catholic Church is full of error and corruption, but still recognized its sacraments as valid. I don't even think I can say that much for Catholicism anymore, and neither would I want to.

So, given your newfound knowledge, where do you now stand on the issue of your parish communing Roman Catholics? Or was the experience of reading the book "eye opening" but not life changing enough to want to do anything about it?

Yes, I know. But as far as I can tell, the autocephalous church is the one more likely to call itself the Indian Orthodox Church, because the other would rather more associate itself with the Syrian Patriarch. It's quite possible that the IOC has much more of an ecumenical outlook than the SOC, which would explain differences in practice related to intercommunion. I will have to ask my spiritual father for a more definite answer, or perhaps even email Bishop Makarios. I'd honestly want to doubt that I belong to a rogue parish that grants Roman Catholics communion just for the heck of it.

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

I'd like to learn whether this really is the practice of the Malankara Church, and if so, what its reasons are, or if it's just the position of a rogue parish. If the greatest virtue is love, maybe love is the reason, even if misplaced.

The Orthodox Church is the ancient Church, as founded by Christ and His Apostles. Throughout its 2,000 year history, the true faith has remained without corruption and without change. Not a mere sect or denomination, it the original body from which all other Christian groups are tangents. There are no valid sacraments outside of Orthodoxy. The Orthodox Church is the Church of the New Testament because she wrote the New Testament. If I am incorrect, please rebuke me.

Peace.

By "no valid sacraments" do you include baptism and marriage?

Logged

Violence is a lie, for it goes against the truth of our faith, the truth of our humanity. Violence destroys what it claims to defend: the dignity, the life, the freedom of human beings. Violence is a crime against humanity, for it destroys the very fabric of society.

You can try. We are willing to debate you on it as we have done before.

Orthodoc

The only fear I have in approaching this topic is that I think I would be the only Catholic arguing that the Catholic Church is the true Church, in the face of a host of Eastern Orthodox Christians. I can forsee it getting very nasty and that I not what I am here for. I would be happy to debate the topic if everyone will be charitable about the issue.

If any Orthodox Christian of this forum does not post on this thread, it is hopefully that you already know and believe that Orthodoxy is the one true and uncorrupted faith.

I'm Catholic and I'm still curious to know if the Sacraments of Baptism and Marriage exist outside the Orthodox Church?

Logged

Violence is a lie, for it goes against the truth of our faith, the truth of our humanity. Violence destroys what it claims to defend: the dignity, the life, the freedom of human beings. Violence is a crime against humanity, for it destroys the very fabric of society.

I'm Catholic and I'm still curious to know if the Sacraments of Baptism and Marriage exist outside the Orthodox Church?

"Exist" is a tricky idea. I think this may have been discussed in the past in the Liturgics forum. If anyone remembers or has a moment, they may want to link those discussions here, in order to provide some more background and helpful-type information.

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

If the Orthodox Church is the sole possessor of sacramental grace, then schismatic groups, breaking themselves from Apostolic Succession, would not have valid sacraments. That may not necessarily be something I'd want to believe, but it makes logical sense in light of Orthodox Tradition.

If the Orthodox Church is the sole possessor of sacramental grace, then schismatic groups, breaking themselves from Apostolic Succession, would not have valid sacraments. That may not necessarily be something I'd want to believe, but it makes logical sense in light of Orthodox Tradition.

So does that mean that a Catholic convert to Orthodoxy needs to be re-baptized and re-married?

Logged

Violence is a lie, for it goes against the truth of our faith, the truth of our humanity. Violence destroys what it claims to defend: the dignity, the life, the freedom of human beings. Violence is a crime against humanity, for it destroys the very fabric of society.

While my wife and I were originally married in the Catholic church, we joyously were married once we entered the Orthodox Church. Fortunately it was done on the same date so I only have one date to remember for both the civil and ecclesiatical marriage...

Regarding 're-baptizing', which can never occur since baptism can only occur once, the thread provides some history.

Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus

While my wife and I were originally married in the Catholic church, we joyously were married once we entered the Orthodox Church. Fortunately it was done on the same date so I only have one date to remember for both the civil and ecclesiatical marriage...

Regarding 're-baptizing', which can never occur since baptism can only occur once, the thread provides some history.

You had to be remarried?!!!!! Does that mean that all married non-Eastern Orthodox couples are living a life of fornication?

The only fear I have in approaching this topic is that I think I would be the only Catholic arguing that the Catholic Church is the true Church, in the face of a host of Eastern Orthodox Christians. I can forsee it getting very nasty and that I not what I am here for. I would be happy to debate the topic if everyone will be charitable about the issue.

Yes, I can imagine the flak you would receive, but if I were to go to Catholic Answers and claim that I belonged to the only true church and the only true church that held all truths I would expect to bet a bit of ribbing also.

You had to be remarried?!!!!! Does that mean that all married non-Eastern Orthodox couples are living a life of fornication?

Keep in mind that you have to approach this from an Orthodox perspective in order for it to make sense - i.e imposing a Roman Catholic world view on Orthodox practice is artificial. From the Orthodox point of view, she is the true Church whence God dispenses His Grace on earth. If you attend an Orthodox wedding or read through the liturgical texts for a weddding ( www.goarch.org or www.oca.org would likely have these) you'll see we view the wedding ceremony a bit differently - we ask God to bless the marriage via the priestly office, this is reflected that in the Byzantine Rite deacon are do not perfom marriages as they can in the Roman rite. So why would a couple that converts to Orthodoxy NOT want to have the extra blessings the Church bestows upon their marriage? As for other people living a life of fornication - that is just plain silly, we don't get into legal concepts in the same manner as Catholics. Furthermore it doesn't concern us nor help us in obtaining our own salvation.

Yes, I can imagine the flak you would receive, but if I were to go to Catholic Answers and claim that I belonged to the only true church and the only true church that held all truths I would expect to bet a bit of ribbing also.

Actually the situation at Catholic Answers is crazy. The moderator of the Eastern Christianity Sub-forum claims that he is Eastern Catholic. Now I have met many wonderful Eastern Catholics. But this guys has no idea where his allegiances lie. He allows the Eastern Orthodox to pretty much say anything they want about the Catholic Church. The second a Catholic states the Traditional Catholic opinion, he is down there throats. Catholics are not even allowed to say that the Eastern Orthodox are in schism and this is supposedly a Catholic web site!!!! I prefer it here where you guys don't get your feelings hurt because I have a different view point.

So does that mean that a Catholic convert to Orthodoxy needs to be re-baptized and re-married?

That depends upon how strict of a jurisdiction you are converting into. Some, for example, will accept any Trinitarian baptism, within reason. Others, however, will insist upon re-baptism and feel offended if you suggest otherwise.

The issue of rebaptism and remarriage has been addressed in other threads. I don't have the time to look them up at the moment, but I remember them well...

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

The Orthodox Info article (which I read awhile ago) probably answers some questions with questionable or uncharitable answers. As Chris stated earlier, there is no "re-baptism" nor "re-marriage" - either they did or didn't happen. But sacramentally, the Orthodox Church doesn't recognize "sacraments" outside the church because all sacraments are tied to the Eucharist - and therefore, since the other "churches" are not connected via Eucharist to us, they aren't performing "sacraments" in our eyes. Now, if someone comes to the Church and had, say, an RC baptism, it is the Church's right to say that the Form of their baptism was good, and the Chrismation that they will receive when becoming Orthodox will complete the baptism as well... Or if the Church (through its unifying agent, the Bishop) decides that the Baptism and Confirmation of the RC were both good in form, then the prayer that He would read over the convert would complete them both (as he would invoke the Spirit to do so).

I don't know why we 'need' to recognize sacraments of those outside the Church or not - they're not in the Church, so it isn't our problem. We love them, and preach the gospel of love, but calling them fornicators or heretics is pointless --> since they're not in the Church we can't prescribe them epitimia or corrective measures. If they stay outside the Church, then God bless them, and I hope He brings them to eternal life... But until then they're outside of The Vessel which sails to salvation.

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

The Orthodox Info article (which I read awhile ago) probably answers some questions with questionable or uncharitable answers. As Chris stated earlier, there is no "re-baptism" nor "re-marriage" - either they did or didn't happen.

Well, it clearly did happen-- people saw it! It is simply being alleged that the acts were ineffectual-- which is precisely why the language of "validity" gets used. The real argument reflects prefectly the Western category of "valid minister"; it's just that the Cyprianic claims of who is valid are so much more restrictive.

We have of course been around this several times over the years. I continue in my opinion that the "didn't happen" position is hyperbolic.